What is the test for a jury to determine whether a defendant's failure to instruct the jury on an element of the crime is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Westerfield, 243 Cal.Rptr.3d 18, 433 P.3d 914, 6 Cal.5th 632 (Cal. 2019):
federal constitutions. (See Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1, 17, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 [under the federal constitution, the failure to instruct the jury on an element of the crime is reviewed for whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt]; People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1208, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 95 P.3d 811, citing People v. Watson , supra , 46 Cal.2d at p. 836, 299 P.2d 243 [under the state constitution, the inquiry is whether there is no reasonable probability that the outcome of defendants trial would have been different had the trial court properly instructed the jury].) Defendant relied on an alibi defense and made no claim asserting that Danielle willingly left
[433 P.3d 976]
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
